Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Necessary Cookies

Necessary Cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and they can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences.

Analytical Cookies

In order to best serve its website customers, ADA maintains data indicating which website pages are of interest to its customers. Information is maintained in aggregate and not by individual customers. If you do not wish to allow ADA to track your visit in aggregate, please select the 'I do not accept' option below. Click the Save Settings button to set your preference.

I accept the usage of analytical cookies
I do not accept the use of analytical cookies

Please note that this pop-up notice will appear on every CDR website page until you have saved your preferred setting.

Measured RMRs and RMRs calculated from the Harris-Benedict equation were plotted against age to further evaluate the effects of age on RMR and to analyze the relationship of predicted to actual metabolic rates.

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

One measurement time

Volunteers completed a routine day of activity, at 19:00 hours they ate a balance CHO, fat and protein meal providing ample calories; encouraged to go to bed at 22:00 and RMR was measured at 08:00 the next a.m.

Rest before measure: Semi-supine position at complete bed rest for at least 30 minutes before the resting studies were done

Measurement length: 10 minutes; first four to five minutes used to clear the machine of room air; last five to six minutes used for recording/calculating O2 consumption, CO2 production and RQ

Fasting length: 12- to 13-hour overnight fast

Exercise conditioning 24 prior to test? Comparable from day-to-day

Room temp: 22-24 degrees C; humidity was approximately 33%

No. of measures and were they repeated? Each value was mean of five or six one-minute values; two or three baseline line values were determined at 15-minute intervals

Coefficient of variation? None reported

Equipment of Calibration: Yes, before and during each study

Training of measurer? Standard protocol

Subject training of measuring process?: Yes

Monitored heart rate? Yes

Body temperature? Yes.

Independent variables

Age

Height: Barefoot

Weight: Barefoot and in light clothes

Body mass index (BMI): kg/m2

Body cell mass

Abdominal:hip ratio (A:H): Calculated from the circumference of the waist measured at a point through the upper one-third of the distance between the xiphoid process and the umbilicus divided by the circumference of the hips measured at a point 4cm below the superior anterior iliac process

Body composition: To determine fat mass and fat-free mass

Densitometric analysis:
Underwater weighing was conducted in a 5x5x5½ tank with a light metal chair with a 10-pound weighted belt suspended from a Chatillion 15kg scale
Weighing procedure repeated six or more times until three similar readings within 25g were obtained. Residual lung volume determined by the N washout technique.

Skinfold thicknesses obtained using a Lange caliper; had a constant tension of 10g/mm2 and measurements were taken on the right side of the body at eight sites to nearest 0.5mm and three skinfolds used for calculations to obtain body density data (chest, abdomen and thigh)

Over and underestimations were age dependent. The equation of the regression line is 118%-0.28 years. HB equation overestimates the RMR of young individuals and underestimates the RMR of males >64 years. On the average HB equation overestimates RMR by 9.2% in people <50 years and underestimates RMR by 0.8% in men >50 years.

Gender

The influence of gender on RMR is eliminated when fat-free mass by densitometry or skinfold thickness is used as the variable

The influence of gender on body composition (body weight, fat-free mass and fat mass) for women and men (using Owens previously published data on women). The slopes of the fat masses compared with the fat-free masses are statistically different (P<0.05) for women and men.

Dietary Data

There was a continuum for caloric requirements from the lowest to highest weights among lean and obese men. The quantities of individual macronutrients (CHO, fat, pro) oxidized did not increase parallel to weights. The non-protein respiratory quotient decreases as body weight increases.

The prediction equation may over- or underestimate the measured RMR by 18-29%. This broad range of RMR per unit mass of both lean and obese men conclusively demonstrates that metabolic efficiency is neither necessarily nor exclusively related to obesity

The influence of age on the RMR of healthy women (-2.9±2.3 age in years) and men (-3.3±1.8 age in years) was present but too small to be statistically significant

Usefulness of any RMR prediction equation derived from a population with large 95% confidence limits is questionable. Metabolic requirements of humans should be measured rather than predicted

Adult women have more stored, relatively inert triglyceride than men per unit body mass. Slopes of the RMR regression lines for women and men are different when weight is used as the variable but there is no difference in the slope when FFM is used. [Hence] the influence of sex is negated when fat-free mass is used to calculate the predicted RMR

Limited number of older adults; Ddd not perform a power analysis on small difference between age on the RMR of healthy women and men

Study biases include

Unable to determine who performed IC measurements

An intervening variable not measured smoking and body temperature

Did not analyze measured vs. predicted differences by weight classification. Group mean error differences excluding obese weight classifications were recalculated and found at the end of the Evidence Summary.

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research

Relevance Questions

1.

Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies)

Yes

2.

Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about?

Yes

3.

Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice?

Yes

4.

Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies)

Yes

Validity Questions

1.

Was the research question clearly stated?

Yes

1.1.

Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified?

Yes

1.2.

Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated?

Yes

1.3.

Were the target population and setting specified?

Yes

2.

Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias?

Yes

2.1.

Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study?

Yes

2.2.

Were criteria applied equally to all study groups?

Yes

2.3.

Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described?

Yes

2.4.

Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population?

Yes

3.

Were study groups comparable?

Yes

3.1.

Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT)

N/A

3.2.

Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline?

???

3.3.

Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.)

N/A

3.4.

If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis?

Yes

3.5.

If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls?
(If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.)

N/A

3.6.

If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")?

N/A

4.

Was method of handling withdrawals described?

Yes

4.1.

Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups?

N/A

4.2.

Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.)

Yes

4.3.

Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for?

???

4.4.

Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups?

N/A

4.5.

If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study?

N/A

5.

Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias?

N/A

5.1.

In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate?

N/A

5.2.

Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.)

N/A

5.3.

In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded?

N/A

5.4.

In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status?

N/A

5.5.

In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results?

N/A

6.

Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described?

Yes

6.1.

In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied?

N/A

6.2.

In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described?

Yes

6.3.

Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect?

Yes

6.4.

Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured?